Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mu_agd
|
What does that prove? If DNA was the definitive proof of innocense or guilty then why didn't the police rule the family out as suspects when their DNA didn't match either? What DNA did they compare? As I remember there was one strand of hair found on the body. As stray hair could come from anywhere. It may or may not belong to the killer. It could have been transfered from anyone that the victim met during the weeks before the crime. Was there other DNA found on the body like body fluids?